For me, it was between Draper and Shanahan. Shanny may be the more obvious choice but I think you could make a case for the often overlooked Draper. He was a part of every one of our last four Cup wins. Everyone talks about how important your role players are during the playoffs. He was the heart of our fourth line for so many years. An ace on faceoffs and PK'ing. He won a Selke in '04. He is one of only six players to play 1,000 games for the Red Wings.

Its pretty funny looking at the votes because it seems any serious fan with a bit of knowledge about the past is voting for Black Jack (and he is quite an obvious choice) and the random casual fan is voting for Shanahan.

Its pretty funny looking at the votes because it seems any serious fan with a bit of knowledge about the past is voting for Black Jack (and he is quite an obvious choice) and the random casual fan is voting for Shanahan.

Or they weren't born during 1938-1950 and instead of going off reputation they are basing their choice on actually seeing Shanahan play?

Define serious fan? Because I don't think knowing every great player from the past is a requirement.

Or they weren't born during 1938-1950 and instead of going off reputation they are basing their choice on actually seeing Shanahan play?

Define serious fan? Because I don't think knowing every great player from the past is a requirement.

Serious fans are the guys who hang out on the history of hockey board and think they have the uncanny ability to rank any player of all time -- and you're not allowed to disagree with them if you want to be called serious.

Hockey fans who think they've made an "intellectual pursuit" of the game.

Serious fans are the guys who hang out on the history of hockey board and think they have the uncanny ability to rank any player of all time -- and you're not allowed to disagree with them if you want to be called serious.

Hockey fans who think they've made an "intellectual pursuit" of the game.

The amount of time you spend telling people who is actually good, overrated and what the CBA negotiations actually mean lately and you're going to bully another crowd. I mean I enjoy the debate most of the time and it is opinion site but the history buffs around here aren't as comically bad as this makes them look. I think it is probably important to know who some of the historical guys on your team are, but you're somewhat right that people can take it too far on the History of Hockey board. But the tone of their posting isn't much different than a lot of the choice ways you attempt to sit people down and berate them into your position.

Serious fans are the guys who hang out on the history of hockey board and think they have the uncanny ability to rank any player of all time -- and you're not allowed to disagree with them if you want to be called serious.

Hockey fans who think they've made an "intellectual pursuit" of the game.

I don't think you need to get deep into hockey history to be a 'serious' fan, but knowing a bit about the history of your own franchise and appreciating the value of absolute legends of the game who played for the Wings before your time is a fair prerequisite, if we care to define 'serious' fans, which I don't care to beyond a post or two.

It does not take a mental giant to understand Larry Aurie was a much better player and Red Wing than Kris Draper, but he is probably guaranteed to lose even on this forum, which I would consider mainly 'devout' fans but maybe all not as 'serious' (caring about the history and context of the team), as a more serious fan might be googling a name I mentioned they did not recognize, while a less serious, but very devout fan will gloss over it in a hurry to check out Canada's Junior tryout scrimmage results.

I'm not saying one fan is better than the other (I consider myself both), but mainly just playing at semantics.

A serious fan to me is someone who loves their team AND knows its history. Why their team is great. Why it was great before. Why it wasnt and so on. That is the dedication of a serious fan.

Note: I'm not saying its wrong to be casual or not having an intrest with past players but why vote on a poll then when you don't really care who actually is the best/greatest of all time?

I say staying up in the middle of the night watching your favorite team takes some kind of dedication. But learning about your team's history 50-60 years ago is just a waste of time. You can't compare the NHL at that time and now anyways.

I say staying up in the middle of the night watching your favorite team takes some kind of dedication. But learning about your team's history 50-60 years ago is just a waste of time. You can't compare the NHL at that time and now anyways.

'Serious' fan could also be defined as 'Nerdy' fan, IMO. Guilty here.

And why can't I try and compare it? It's fun and interesting, IMO, and I feel I can give very logical arguments when comparing players across eras. Anyone who believes Gordie Howe was better than Sergei Fedorov inherently understands that already.

To echo what has already been said to one member's ignorant comments, some people think they are elitests when it comes to making picks that come from out of left field. Sometimes the obvious choice player makes for the obvious vote, because it's well deserved. Not saying your pick is any less valid, but don't knock others for their pick.

I never saw Jack Stewart play, nor did 99 percent of the forum members on hockeysfuture. btw That 99 percent is probably more like 100. So I go based on what I know beyond the stats and little-to-no in-depth analysis's of a player. Back then the game didn't have the expanded audience it has today, due to decades of fan growth and available media outlets. Brendan Shanahan is not a random fan pick. He's one of the best power forwards in the game. He played some of his best years in Detroit, playing a huge part in a few of those Cup wins. It seems logical that he would be voted over a player who's last NHL game was in 1952. As someone who obsesses about the game and its history, I am aware of players today and yesteryear. Having said that it goes to say, I prefer to take the stronger and more talented player. The guy who was conditioned for a bigger faster game. One that has seen decades of evolution from Jack Stewart's time. You say an educated fan should know those players. An educated fan should also know the game has evolved since those players time. You can't compare a Joe Malone to a Sidney Crosby, because one is clearly superior to the other despite how dominate one may have been in their era.

I'll take it further... I am a Vladimir Konstantinov fan. After Steve Yzerman he's my all-time favorite Red Wing and the defenseman I cherish more than any other in the game. His dominating performance in the 1997 Cup Final against Philadelphia where he was Eric Lindros and John Leclair's shadow, will not be forgotten. He made their life miserable and made it difficult for either one to produce, and was one of the major factors why those two stars were held to one point each in that Final. However, as tempting as it was to vote for him, I had to go with who I felt deep down inside was the better Wing in his time with Motorcity. Maybe things would have been different if Vladimir's career wasn't cut short.

I am not saying you're not allowed to have an opinion and go with a Jack Stewart or Norm Ullman as your pick. It's not always who would be better today, but who had the biggest impact in the franchise's history. I get that. However, to talk down or make it be known how much more educated your opinion is vs another's comes off rather insulting.

To echo what has already been said to one member's ignorant comments, some people think they are elitests when it comes to making picks that come from out of left field. Sometimes the obvious choice player makes for the obvious vote, because it's well deserved. Not saying your pick is any less valid, but don't knock others for their pick.

I never saw Jack Stewart play, nor did 99 percent of the forum members on hockeysfuture. btw That 99 percent is probably more like 100. So I go based on what I know beyond the stats and little-to-no in-depth analysis's of a player. Back then the game didn't have the expanded audience it has today, due to decades of fan growth and available media outlets. Brendan Shanahan is not a random fan pick. He's one of the best power forwards in the game. He played some of his best years in Detroit, playing a huge part in a few of those Cup wins. It seems logical that he would be voted over a player who's last NHL game was in 1952. As someone who obsesses about the game and its history, I am aware of players today and yesteryear. Having said that it goes to say, I prefer to take the stronger and more talented player. The guy who was conditioned for a bigger faster game. One that has seen decades of evolution from Jack Stewart's time. You say an educated fan should know those players. An educated fan should also know the game has evolved since those players time. You can't compare a Joe Malone to a Sidney Crosby, because one is clearly superior to the other despite how dominate one may have been in their era.

I'll take it further... I am a Vladimir Konstantinov fan. After Steve Yzerman he's my all-time favorite Red Wing and the defenseman I cherish more than any other in the game. His dominating performance in the 1997 Cup Final against Philadelphia where he was Eric Lindros and John Leclair's shadow, will not be forgotten. He made their life miserable and made it difficult for either one to produce, and was one of the major factors why those two stars were held to one point each in that Final. However, as tempting as it was to vote for him, I had to go with who I felt deep down inside was the better Wing in his time with Motorcity. Maybe things would have been different if Vladimir's career wasn't cut short.

I am not saying you're not allowed to have an opinion and go with a Jack Stewart or Norm Ullman as your pick. It's not always who would be better today, but who had the biggest impact in the franchise's history. I get that. However, to talk down or make it be known how much more educated your opinion is vs another's comes off rather insulting.

Its rather insulting to me that fans vote for the greatest red wings of all-time and then just votes for modern players because thats what they've seen and they dont care about the history of this great franchise. So my question is, why vote is you dont care?

How old are you, out of curiosity? You seem to be us on the more modern guys of recent years. You seem so infatuated with the past. It's not ignoring history. IF it was a lot of us wouldn't have picked the Howes and Delvecchio's already. Like seriously, get over this historic pride. The very fact those guys already are listed top 10 should make your argument moot from your end. People should be allowed to have an opinion without it constantly being put into question.